[42]

"25 More Bridge Conventions You Should Know" by Barbara Seagram & David Bird (2003, Master Point Press, ISBN 1-894154-65-7), recommended for the intermediate player, but the advanced will perhaps find some interesting thoughts or completions, too.
Whenever I heard about a convention which I didn't know, my only dwell (if so) for knowledge was the Bridge-Encyclopedia. Or, when agreeing to play a new convention, I played what my partner explained in short form (sometimes hoping that it will not come up ). In this book one can look up the pros and contras for the described convention and its consequences as well as how to use it with examples and a short quiz at the end of the chapter. You find conventions like Bergen Raises, Gambling 3NT, Namyats, Ingberman, Snapdragon Doubles, Inverted Minors, Leaping Michael's, Exclusion Blackwood and -let me count....- 17 others in it. I also like the layout.
I did not yet read the first book "25 Bridge Conventions You Should Know", but I am sure it will be fine as well.

[Chamaco]

Quote

>So, yes, I think that perhaps, in my enthusiasm for this book, I got carried away with my chess background , sorry for the wasted money, let's say I owe you couple of beers ?

Next time I'm in Italy I will gladly take you up on this! 
(I went for my Honeymoon, for 2 weeks, had a great time, Florence was my favorite city, but the Tuscany countyside was beautiful too).

Alright, I am saving the money for the drinks then

Quote

[my only thought on your review is next time, please emphasize that its a beginner book, and not for intermediates.  Your sentence "Overall, a must-read, IMO. " made me buy it.  Perhaps "A must read for beginner players" would have been better.]

Indeed, I meant what I wrote.
I still believe this book is the best introduction to enplays, throw ins and various squeezes.

As such, I do think it is better geared towatds intermediate-advanced.
As you wrote in other posts, there are better bridge books oriented to beginners 8e.g. Klinger/Kambites, etc etc).

Perhaps my original post raised the expectations too high.
But, let's make another beer bet :
try rereading the book (especially the second half) in a few months, when the disappointment has evaporated, and - perhaps - you are rereading some book on squeezes, coups, and endplays.

I nbet another beer that you might enjoy it more than you think now

[luke warm]

too late mauro, he's sending it to me

[GeeGee]

Chamaco, on Nov 28 2005, 11:43 AM, said:

Indeed, I meant what I wrote.
I still believe this book is the best introduction to enplays, throw ins and various squeezes.

As such, I do think it is better geared towatds intermediate-advanced.

I'm with Chamaco on this one.

I discovered the book a few months after I started learning bridge, and found quite a lot of it a struggle. A couple of years later it all became a lot more comprehensible and helpful, and now I use examples from it on my intermediates' declarer play training course.

Quote

  The hard part (99% of the challenge) is getting to that point and figuring out whats going on at the start. 

Very true.

[Flame]

I didnt read the book, but i agree with those who claim that learning in depth the simple matters is a great learning technic which will in time get better results then going fast. Its not easy to do since we all want to run rather then walk.

[ArcLight]

>I discovered the book a few months after I started learning bridge, and found quite a lot of it a struggle. A couple of years later it all became a lot more comprehensible and helpful, and now I use examples from it on my intermediates' declarer play training course.


OK, for someone just learning Bridge its ok. But a review should clearly say that. I don't want to buy "great" beginner books.

For me, an intermediate it was a complete waste of time. I prefer reading books like Play Safe and Win by Eric Jannersten or Play Bridge with Reese or Card Play Technique by Victor Mollo.

Imagine if someone posted about Adventures in Cardplay "A great way to learn the game" a must read. And this causes beginners to buy the book. Guess what, you wasted your money (for now) because that book is so far above you as to be useless.


Golden Rule for reviews:
Please post the level the book is geared to.
Especially if its focused on just one group (Experts, beginners, etc)



>I didnt read the book, but i agree with those who claim that learning in depth the simple matters is a great learning technic which will in time get better results then going fast. Its not easy to do since we all want to run rather then walk.

Thats not the issue. The issue is that the review said its a MUST BUY. Its not a MUST BUY for anyone above beginners.

If someone posts reviews that are misleading they will lose credibility. Plus it will damage the forum/folder as people consider the posts unreliable. (Not that anything should be accepted as 100% fact anyway

[Chamaco]

ArcLight, on Nov 29 2005, 03:43 PM, said:

Golden Rule for reviews:
Please post the level the book is geared to.
Especially if its focused on just one group (Experts, beginners, etc)

I agree with you

I just think that the ambiguity arose about what constitutes an intermediate/advanced.

I do consider this book a must for anyone who is undertaking a serious study of squeeze, coups, and endplays and such, because basically it's a systematic classification of typical endings.

I consider this skill level to correspond to intermediate/advanced (IMO lower level players won't be studying endplays, coups and squeezes), but everything is relative, one might have a different perception of the skill, and I won't argue about that.

However, I do think that this book would not be practical for a real beginner: there are even more basic stuff to learn before these ending positions, IMO :-)

But, I hope your post is a disclaimer for other readers that might find it too elementary, so I won't owe beers to more readers (and lose credibility ) !

[ArcLight]

Play Safe and Win by Eric Jannersen

Good intermediate level book. Covers a range of declarer techniques on how to play a contract properly, for extra safety. Not just simple things like end plays, but card combinations, maintaining trump control, and in general non obvious (to intermediates) ways to play a hand.

The material is nothing you wont find in other good books, like Card Play Technique by Mollo. But I liked the selection of hands (no double dummy hands, you only see your hand and dummy). The problems were not very hard, but I got quite a number wrong, and its likely at the table I'd have gotten even more wrong.

Worth reading.

[Chamaco]

Spotlight on Card Play
by Robert Darvas, Paul Lukacs
Reprinted in 1982

The book is advertised as being the first one to adopt the "over the shoulder" approach used later by Reese, Lawrence, and others.
Indeed, the style resembles the series of card play books by Berthe and Lebely.

As the title suggests, it's a book on card play, both as declarer and as defender.

The reader is asked at steps to form a plan and what would be the corect choice, and if he decides to read on, he'll read the thoughts going through the writers' mind in trying to solve the problem.

The difficulties progresses through the 69 deals, ranging from the early ones which deal with intermediate quizzes to the latest deals, that cover more advanced techniques (various squeezes, coups, deception, etc).

The clarity vy which the hands are dealt with remind me very much of the Bridgemaster deals, as well as the simpler Deals of the Weeks commented by Fred.

All in all, I think it's an excellent book for intermediate-advanced (A).
IMO the early deals are useful also for beginners, but after a while the difficulty progresses, and perhaps other more basic books will be advisable for beginners.
Definitely not a book for experts unless for teaching purposes.

[mike777]

Reread both these books after many years.

Master Play in Contract Bridge. Terence Reese, 1960, 143 pages, 5$
Grade=B

Very advanced Play topics. Type is very small and written in a difficult to follow style. Still worth a reread for those interested in top flight plays.

Play These Hands With Me. Terence Reese, 2001, 202 pages, 15.95$
Grade=B+

Written in Reese's famous over the shoulder style. Interesting and fancy plays but not sure how useful for the average player. Some of the play is difficult to follow and many of the hands rely on less than perfect defense.

[Double !]

mike777, on Dec 9 2005, 07:40 PM, said:

Reread both these books after many years.

Master Play in Contract Bridge. Terence Reese, 1960, 143 pages, 5$
Grade=B

Very advanced Play topics. Type is very small and written in a difficult to follow style. Still worth a reread for those interested in top flight plays.

Five dollars for Masterplay?

Talk about inflation: my version (1966) was only One dollar (probably equivalent to $15-20 in today's economy)

I still think it's one of the best books out there. In particular, I like the small section on "upside-down inferences".

DHL

[ArcLight]

The Extra Edge in Play by Terence Reese and Julian Pottage


I'm a big fan of most of Reeses non bididng books (his bidding books tend to be very out dated in general, like How to Bid a Bridge Hand). This is probably the worst Reese book I've read. I wonder how many of the hands were selected by him, and how many by Pottage? I've read a few of Pottages books and don't care for them at all. I wonder if Pottage wrote this book, and got Reese to affix his name, for a fee.

The book has 50 non-double dummy declarer problems. Perhas a third of them are good problems. Many require some obscure inference, or slightly higher percentage play. This is an advanced book in the sense that I think few players would solve these problems. They aren't hard problems like some of Kelseys, most don't require very advanced technique, instaed they require playing for some specific lie of the cards or finesse based on small inference. I just don't think the problems are anywhere near as good as in other books.

I rate it a C-

[contrast this with Reeses "The Most Puzzling Situations in Bridge Play" which I rate an A]


[Note: don't confuse this with Reeses book "Those Extra Chances in Bridge" which is a good book]

Here is a typical problem

6 Spades.
Opponents silent,
King of ♦ lead

---

How do you play the hand?

Solution below (Hidden)

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Spoiler

---

The author first says that West is slightly more likely to have longer diamonds you might play him for spade shortness. Then the author suggests winning the Diamond K, and continuing the suit. If East ruffs, you over ruff and have a count of the trumps after playing the Ace. If not, percentage dictates playing East for the Qxx in trumps.


My thought is:
What if diamonds are 4-3 or 3-4? Didn't the author create a somewhat less likely hand to prove his point?

The author says a 3-1 break is more likely than 2-2. But A then K is the theorectically correct way to play the suit (holding 9 cards, missing the Q), unless you have additional information. If East shows out, then East is more likely to have the Q, because of the 3 vacant places, but in the example West has it, and if East doesnt ruff, then the authors initial advice is wrong. I think they could have used a discovery play along with a somewhat different lie of the cards, to make for a better problem. Another reason I don't like the problem is we are quibbling about 1-2%, and it takes away from the good point about the discovery play.

I just don't think this is all that good a problem. Its typical of the 50 problems.

[ArcLight]

Justin,
I don't disagree with what you said.
I do like the idea of the discovery play, as it doesnt cost anything. That part is good.

But the book said that the K♦ lead implied length in ♦, and therefore to play for 3-1 and finesse.
I don't think the initial premise they presented, playing for a 3-1 split because of the assumed diamond length in West was all that great for a problem. I think that there isn't enough information to make that assumption.

Again, the discovery play was a good idea, and if that was all they wrote it would be fine. I actually think your analysis is better that that provided in the book!

[han]

It seems to me that this is a very good hand, I don't understand the critique. Everything that you have quoted from the book seems correct. I also don't understand why a book gets a low rating because it is for advanced players. I think that there are many more good books for beginners and intermediate players than for advanced players.

[han]

I found two books in the library that I didn't know yet:

Play BRIDGE with OMAR SHARIF

and

OMAR SHARIF'S LIFE IN BRIDGE

Two easy reads, I rate them both B.

I'm surprised that I was actually interested to read about Sharif himself, perhaps because he talks a lot about Garozzo, Belladonna, Forquet and Delmouly, as well as some American bridge players. The bridge hands are fun, and his views on scientific bidding are entertaining. I don't think I learned much from these books, but I enjoyed reading them.

[ArcLight]

>I also don't understand why a book gets a low rating because it is for advanced players.

I never said that. You are imagining that. Try reading what I actually wrote.
I said its a book for advannced players. And I said I didn't like the selection of hands. Some were good. But quite a few relied on what I considered marginal inferences, or involved some slighlt higher card combination.
I've seen Reese produce far better books. This is easily the worst of them.
For a much better book, try Reese "The Most Puzzling Situations in Bridge".


>I think that there are many more good books for beginners and intermediate players than for advanced players.

So what? That has nothing to do with my post.
You are not reading what I wrote, you are inventing things. My post was clear, it is you who are making the assumption that I dislike books for advanced players.
My post didn't say anything about a book that is for advanced players being bad.


Discovery plays are fine. But playing for some lie of the cards in the trump suit based on the lead of the King of diamonds is pretty weak IMHO.
The authors wrote that becausse of the lead of the King of diamonds, you can assume that LHO has diamond length and thus trump shortness and thus the finesse is worth trying. I don't think the lead of teh Diamond K has to imply diamond length, and even if it does, it doesnt affect the trump distrubution all that much. If the odds go from 52% to 50% (because of an extra vacant place, and the somewhat greater chance RHO will have an extyra trump), then I don't consider that all that good a problem.

In fact, in the problem LHO has the Qx of trumps, along with 5 diamonds, so if East doesn't ruff, you will go down following the authors line of reasoning, because you will finesse the Spade J allowing LHOs Q to win. In addition, the "correct" play of 9 cards, holding the A and K, is to play them off. So you need some evidence to the contrary to not do that. Not a lot of evidence, but some, and it's not given in this problem.
In summary, the Discovery play, tempting East to ruff is fine. But the rest of teh analysis I don't think is very good.


Contrast that with some of Reeses better problems, where if a finesse is working there is no need to take it. This is easily the worst of the Reese books I've read (that are aimed at intermediates and above, and excluding his bidding books).

[Chamaco]

ArcLight, on Dec 12 2005, 02:10 PM, said:

Contrast that with some of Reeses better problems, where if a finesse is working there is no need to take it. This is easily the worst of the Reese books I've read (that are aimed at intermediates and above, and excluding his bidding books).

It is common opinion that many of the newest books that include Reese as coauthor (Rees + Bird, Reese + Pottage, etc etc) were not really written by him.

Perhaps this might be the case for this book ?

[han]

Arclight

The author first says that West is slightly more likely to have longer diamonds you might play him for spade shortness.

These were your words in the original post. Notice the "slightly more likely" and "might", this is very different from your "implies" and "should" in a later post. If this is the wording in the book then it is correct and you seem to miss the subtlety.

Then the author suggests winning the Diamond K, and continuing the suit. If East ruffs, you over ruff and have a count of the trumps after playing the Ace. If not, percentage dictates playing East for the Qxx in trumps.


We agree that the line suggested by the book is best. You now argue that you will go down if west holds Qx of trumps and east doesn't ruff. That's the problem with percentage plays isn't it, that you can always get it wrong even if you play it the best way possible?

I haven't read the book and you may very well be right that many of the hands are not good. However, your comments about this hand seem to indicate that you didn't get it, and perhaps that was true for other hands too.

[ArcLight]

>It is common opinion that many of the newest books that include Reese as coauthor (Rees + Bird, Reese + Pottage, etc etc) were not really written by him.

>Perhaps this might be the case for this book

I don't know, but it could very well be.

I've read a few of Pottages books (his most recent Clues from the Bidding) and I don't care for them. I don't like the problem selection and analysis, in general.

One thing about some of Reese's GOOD books, is that the problem selection seems very good. They are interesting problems, that come up, rather than some kind of very unusual or very hard problem.

Favorite technique books by Reese
- The most puzzling situations in bridge play
- How the Experts Do it - Improving your Bridge skill
- Squeeze play made easy

These are good too, though not as good as those above
- Snares And Swindles In Bridge
- Those Extra Chances In Bridge
He has a bunch with Roger Trezel as a co-writer that I like.

I also liked
- Play Bridge with Reese


There were ok, nothing special
- The Mistakes you make at Bridge
- Bridge tips from the Masters


This was above my level
- The hidden side of bridge


One general comment about Reeses books: to me he comes across as a nasty person. refering to weak players as the "villiage idiot", etc. While amusing at times, it turned me off at the beginning and for a while I didn't bother reading his books. His books are worth reading.


(There are probably many good bridge books that have never been translated to English, and thagt I'm not even aware of.)